POLITICAL STABILITY Flashcards
BURMA: democracy 1950s (48-58), (60-62)
[failed]
(58-60 Ne Win’s “caretaker government”)
weak civilian government -> loss of credibility
- concentration of power in Yangon
-> unable to exercise centralised control
- lacked support of the army
poor religious policies:
- declared buddhism as state religion in 1961
-> intensified minority uprisings
- tried to balance with Christianity and Islamic teachings
-> met with protests from Buddhist monk-hood
-> lacked support of army
-> armed militias were ubiquitous, fought for their ethnic independence
58-60 “caretaker government” under Ne Win
<- as a result of pressure and demands on U Nu to surrender government post
60-62
- ensuing instability under U Nu’s democratic approach (multiple insurgencies and declining economy)
-> Ne Win claimed that democracy was not for Burma
-> led a coupd’etat in March 1962
BURMA: military (1950s-60s)
predominance of military regime and intervention:
#initially (58-60): reduced corruption and improved bureaucratic efficiency, managed to deal with pocket armies
60-62, 62 onwards:
- military arrested members of the civilian government and suspended the constitution
- burma placed under rule of military junta from 62-88
BURMA: maximum government
effect:
democratic institutions dismantled:
- military declared as supreme authority
- parliament dissolved
- all political parties and their formation were illegalised and banned
- 1966: schools were brought under close control of the Ministry of Education
economic policies/ damage:
- Burmanisation policy the land, banking sector, foreign trade, businesses, private schools were nationalised
- military forcefully returned businesses run by Indians and Chinese to the indigenous Burmese = economic drain
- 1964: revolutionary council demonetised 50kyat and 100kyat denominations creating massive poverty
- end 80s “Burmese Way to Socialism”
- by 1967, the country was under a shortage of rice, cooking oil and other commodities leading to the rise of black marketing and corruption
- severe economic crisis
BURMA: superficial democracy
74-88: constitutional dictatorship whereby elections were carried out in 74, 78,81
elections done only in name
- military continued to rule the country legally and all the power was still concentrated under Ne Win
- second election in 78 did not change the national leadership and its policies, unable to resolve economic issues, led to public outcry (8888 protests)
- 1990 election: although the democratic party won over majority of the votes, military government did not hand over the power and instead, arrested members of the democratic party to prevent them from taking over military rule
BURMA: military — government (1970-90s)
civil unrest:
8888 uprising — the government ordered soldiers to fire on peaceful unarmed protestors, killing 2000 people
- resulted in military coup in September 1988
military determined to retain political power:
formation of State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) in 1988
+ by 1999, 17 armed ethnic groups signed military ceasefires which was a major victory of the SLORC
- exploit civil unrest in the context of the 88 uprising
- by releasing all prisoners in Rangoons’s prisons, contributing to widespread crime and looting and chaos
- which became the pretext for accusations that civilians could not handle the government once more, and for the military to intervene in politics again.
- SLORC denied NLD’s victory and numerous senior leaders of NLD arrested
above all, the military government in Myanmar still refuses to honour the constitutional rights of the ethnic minority states to secede from the Union and did not make substantial efforts to return the country to constitutional democracy. as of today, Myanmar’s ethnic armed groups continue to launch insurgences as a result of the military’s refusal to recognise their rights
BURMA: democracy in the 1990s
August 1988: Maung Maung — civilian politician became president to displace the constitutional dictatorship
- May 1990 elections: NLD won over three-quarters of the seats during the election
BURMA: constitutional processes
intially
1947 constitution of the Union of Burma: sought to recognise ethnic minorities
- promised the right to secede for minorities in 10 years (Karens, Shans)
-> unable to deliver their promise, backtracked on their decision
-> led to increased strife, distrust for c.p.
<- Ne Win’s refusal to give secession to the minorities showed him overriding the constitution
-> leader’s personality a bigger factor
1962:
Ne Win suspended the constitution, dissolved parliament and abolished state controls to give the military supreme authority
- military leaders changed to constitutional dictatorship from 1974-1988 to give itself legitimacy at its own preference/ whim/ fancies
THAILAND: democracy
[failed; short-lived (45-47))]
civilian government plagued by political infighting and jostling:
- political parties promoted as vehicles for personal patronage
- political jostling among anti-Phibun free Thais, Royalists who were now allowed political participation and democrat party
- conflict after Kind Ananda’s death
- military resented lack of political role
THAILAND: military’sauthoritarianism
32-38: Phibun
- banned Communism
- 1934 Press Act legalised censorship
- formation of parties not allowed
-> held complete control over mass communications
1948: Phibun — reclaimed power in April
(despite the Democrat Party’s winning of an electoral majority)
- led coup in 1947
- 1951 Radio coup
democracy abolished:
- 1949 abolished constitution, parliament dissolved
- 1932 assembly reinstated (eliminated the Senate)
- 1955 elections: massive vote-rigging
-1956 state of emergency
1957 Sarit coup -> peak of authoritarianism (58-63)
- suspended parliamentary politics
- placed the country under strict martial law
- strict press control
THAILAND: military/ authoritarianism + economy (+)
recovery of economy under Phibun:
- Phibun’s return to power was welcomed by the thais due to economic deterioration under Pridi
- thai baht became the strongest currencies in the world by 1951
- favourable trade balance, continuing demand for Thai exports
- strong anti-communist stance also contributed to US support for the regime
Sarit:
- vast industrialisation programme
- creation of National Economic Development Board to implement necessary reforms to the inefficient state enterprises linked to government elected
- backed highly skilled western-educated technocrats to promote vast infrastructural development programmes
-> boosted production and economic growth in private businesses
- economy growth at an unprecedented rate of 8% throughout 1960s which was maintained at above 7% throughout early 1970s
THAILAND: political stability under authoritarian government *Sarit and King
instituted royal legitimacy which enhanced political stability
- consolidated power by wooing royalty:
- encouraged King Bhumibol to attend ceremonies, tour provinces, support local monks and establish developmental projects in the countryside
- laid the groundwork for King Bhumibol’s transformation from an irrelevant figurehead controlled by military governments to the construction of his unprecedented populating among the Thais as a charismatic and benevolent King
THAILAND: military (-) — civilians/ people power
October 1973 uprising:
fired at 500 000 unarmed demonstrators
THAILAND: people power
october 1973 uprising
(expansion of middle class and the growth of the student body as a result of Sarit’s socio-economic reforms)
- perceived corruption and economic mismanagement from the re-emergence of military (73) and bureaucratic factionalism
1992 Black May protests
<- 1992 elections, Suchinda (military leader) declared himself the PM
- 500 000 people protest to demand Suchinda’s resignation
-> met with brutality, Suchina ordered military crackdown on protestors
THAILAND: failure of democracy
1973-1976
1986-1988
1992-1997
1973-1976: fragile coalition among a wide spectrum of parties
-> economic crisis + instability
-> breeding ground for Marxist ideas (universities and rise of leftist parties + growing insurgencies by the CPT)
-> culminated in October 1976 Thammasat University Massacre
1986-1988: poor political handling
-> Democrat Party was mired in political squabbles and political corruption
-> parliament dissolved twice under General Prem
-> even when General Chatichai (elected member of parliament) replaced Prem, situation did not improve but worsened
-> corruption and graft continued to rise rapidly
-> 1991 Suchinda coup
1992-1997:
-> characterised by fragile and fragmented coalitions
-> epidemic vote-buying, difficult for any government fo finish its term
-> loyalty was owed to faction bosses and business interests, not the people
-> parliament not an effective forum for representing popular interest
THAILAND:
constitutional processes
